Judge hits Beatles MP3 seller with restraining order

Two days after EMI went to court, a federal judge has granted its request for …

The wheels of justice don't always turn slowly. Only two days after music label EMI asked a federal judge to stop BlueBeat.com from selling The Beatles' newly remastered albums online at a quarter a track, the judge has agreed—and suggests that he's just as confused about what BlueBeat is doing as everyone else is.

Judge John Walter took a look at both parties' initial claims and decided to issue a temporary restraining order against BlueBeat and its parent company, Media Rights Technologies. In his discussion, the judge had trouble believing that BlueBeat was selling "entirely different sound recording[s] than that copyrighted by Plaintiffs"—sound recordings apparently generated by "psycho-acoustic simulation."

We ran down the arguments in detail this morning, but if you were still confused after reading them, you're in good company. Judge Walter noted that BlueBeat's response was "lacking in clarity" and he pointed out that the company did not submit "any declarations or reliable evidence in support of their claim that they 'independently developed their own original sounds.'"

Apart from the psycho-acoustic simulation, BlueBeat also appeared to be making the claim that because it embedded image files in the music downloads, they somehow became totally new "audio-visual works." Indeed, BlueBeat claimed to own the copyright on these works.

The judge was incredulous. "However, as one court obviously pointed out," he noted, "'[Defendant] cannot invalidate the copyright of an independent and preexisting sound recording, simply by incorporating that sound recording into an audiovisual work.'"

Judge Walter also ruled that allowing the sales to continue while the issue proceeds to trial wouldn't be fair to the record label. "Furthermore, by offering below-the-market-value downloads of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, as well as free digital streaming transmissions of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, Defendants’ actions can cause irreparable damage to the perceived value of Plaintiffs’ music and to Plaintiffs’ digital distribution strategies and relationships," he wrote.

The restraining order lasts only until November 20, when both sides are to appear in the judge's courtroom and argue if it should be extended until a trial eventually begins.